diff options
| author | Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> | 2017-03-27 12:29:05 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-03-27 16:29:07 +0000 |
| commit | 947fbec943f0145ef605d2fcbf7a5724140a5fc5 (patch) | |
| tree | b61007adce613399925c472eb5573af24f6908c3 /37/fd53778135634dfa45fd8eac54dc316cfec24e | |
| parent | eac57ab3add168d4f1885ea8ce81f89b55ee4d9c (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-947fbec943f0145ef605d2fcbf7a5724140a5fc5.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-947fbec943f0145ef605d2fcbf7a5724140a5fc5.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners
Diffstat (limited to '37/fd53778135634dfa45fd8eac54dc316cfec24e')
| -rw-r--r-- | 37/fd53778135634dfa45fd8eac54dc316cfec24e | 151 |
1 files changed, 151 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/37/fd53778135634dfa45fd8eac54dc316cfec24e b/37/fd53778135634dfa45fd8eac54dc316cfec24e new file mode 100644 index 000000000..efb119104 --- /dev/null +++ b/37/fd53778135634dfa45fd8eac54dc316cfec24e @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +Return-Path: <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C630AB9 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:29:07 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com (mail-oi0-f49.google.com + [209.85.218.49]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62AA9181 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:29:06 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id g83so18755976oia.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; + bh=vtogwiIOAia7xEMyx6xGQWEEKK6nWZhNOmWFQOzWJfY=; + b=IO8jx+3pysRB4aq9wzrSw52BhNHBmSHqIyZZk0/lZFOhEgHrOuA9DDkrd3o+eN+tC4 + MOWyTgziQe2AqNjip70Yho0o7LFa9CNqUsiyYTx501ygfTZOl9hI7/AmKnuDq2lvaplT + HMx3i1WzRfhy61h4TDQ/omdXwshUmuhrHioG8NCdrPHdQ4mvZlOf55pDjsrg1yN660Re + 44Sd64m80nd+3aC9Q3kK/q1KwIx5v1LOz4MwO+TSMk+jl2qUQVLT9b+iW3UMvXCHYv9Z + Gr++loVwEb/7ZH1HU+mIrlUiyUUzoPL+YA+nTa0kRUq1gOeFCPLxJ2WR1A+r38grBIKf + 1+JQ== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date + :message-id:subject:to; + bh=vtogwiIOAia7xEMyx6xGQWEEKK6nWZhNOmWFQOzWJfY=; + b=LqvMtP5jGvwiDu+xhrdVNBJei870IPQQzN/yyRnvk5/aGS+mlCx43ykAcbfBET+l+a + nHXc/7tCnpZWRgdcqmUX0g8ylg4GI/3oqPWGgL4nhZZkT/pbwmUvuEANXjSZK1zdmVti + k3kXwcy6Qh3dl75pt3LF2SI3wReSWbxk7MbNXZKRCHh64XnhlwkkPT3/e1QAcgMzBjoF + YahNVHbCwzl79isx9UbCX8ofdGQzqPDM5YYTUEWRVoQa5/NVOhuBDRjb8+FNPIstHe+W + et8HJeOSa2jsCzAiWDCH/5b5Hz2evc4tO73A4IWfQ+rIgaqtMA2Y/5goQJ/szBEHJ33F + 3qDA== +X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3GTmLttOJkwCYgYj9ouc9ex2zQE4cXd+eGYKrQ3GOrDr/coHixyX4dunu71JAyeNcnVUeWhcaANYaoRg== +X-Received: by 10.202.177.70 with SMTP id a67mr12291854oif.137.1490632145767; + Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.182.172.3 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:29:05 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com> +References: <uQBxE-Qbd-osime4uulMZZHdF_D7usA2EKsPjkTyXCHM0OakN2Wdoeriyrc73yWp5c5ULQNkIsRXAM64cCom7ecPvdwmatOyc9Kh1sTDpl4=@protonmail.com> +From: Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com> +Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:29:05 -0400 +Message-ID: <CADL_X_dZsQ9uOhoyAU3-s0DixSCwYgh0B+NE78zpo+ghYyphCw@mail.gmail.com> +To: Btc Ideas <btcideas@protonmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ce0e88a148b054bb8d70e +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, + RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Encouraging good miners +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:29:07 -0000 + +--001a113ce0e88a148b054bb8d70e +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +Bitcoin chooses the "best chain" based upon the one that has the most +cumulative proof of work behind it. Are you proposing that the cumulative +proof of work be ignored if two blocks are within a certain threshold of +each others' work and if so, the number of transactions in the block / the +size of the block should be used as a "tie breaker?" + +I think this idea needs more fleshing out of exactly how it would work, +with careful consideration that adding complexity to the best chain logic +could introduce exploitable flaws. + +On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more transactions. +> This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height are found. The first +> good block mined would be orphaned if it had less transactions than +> another. Optionally, have this rule apply to the current block and the +> previous one. +> +> This increases incentive for full blocks because a miner thinking the +> faster propagation of a smaller block will win him the reward, but that +> would no longer be a good assumption. +> +> I read some miners could attack a chain by mining small or empty blocks. +> This makes that a little more difficult, but they can still attack the +> chain many ways. +> +> +> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email. +> +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> +> + +--001a113ce0e88a148b054bb8d70e +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">Bitcoin chooses the "best chain" based upon the = +one that has the most cumulative proof of work behind it. Are you proposing= + that the cumulative proof of work be ignored if two blocks are within a ce= +rtain threshold of each others' work and if so, the number of transacti= +ons in the block / the size of the block should be used as a "tie brea= +ker?"<div><br></div><div>I think this idea needs more fleshing out of = +exactly how it would work, with careful consideration that adding complexit= +y to the best chain logic could introduce exploitable flaws.</div></div><di= +v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 27, 2017= + at 12:12 PM, Btc Ideas via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma= +ilto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@l= +ists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai= +l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left= +:1ex"><div>Add a preference for mined blocks to be the one with more transa= +ctions. This comes into play when 2 blocks of the same height are found. Th= +e first good block mined would be orphaned if it had less transactions than= + another. Optionally, have this rule apply to the current block and the pre= +vious one.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This increases incentive for full b= +locks because a miner thinking the faster propagation of a smaller block wi= +ll win him the reward, but that would no longer be a good assumption.<br></= +div><div><br></div><div>I read some miners could attack a chain by mining s= +mall or empty blocks. This makes that a little more difficult, but they can= + still attack the chain many ways.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><= +div class=3D"m_8850343332467748790protonmail_signature_block"><div class=3D= +"m_8850343332467748790protonmail_signature_block-proton">Sent with <a href= +=3D"https://protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ProtonMail</a> Secure Email.<= +br></div></div><div><br></div><br>______________________________<wbr>______= +___________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.= +<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org= +/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br> +<br></blockquote></div><br></div> + +--001a113ce0e88a148b054bb8d70e-- + |